Two scientists are observing a group of children eating at snack time. After watching the children, Scientist A says the children eat because they are hungry. Scientist B says the children eat because their friends are eating. Which scientist's conclusion is valid? A. Scientist B's conclusion is valid because it is supported by evidence. B. Neither conclusion is valid. Conclusions cannot be drawn from observations. C. Scientist A's conclusion is valid because eating is necessary to stay healthy. D. Both scientists' conclusions could be valid.

D. Both scientists' conclusions could be valid.

Explanation:

D is correct because there is not enough information provided to draw an exact conclusion from the observations.

hey bro i looked it up on google the structure of the eye-spot in euglena viridie, e. ehrenbergii, and phacus pyriyorme is not as franzé haa described it. the so-called “crystal body” and “lens bodies” were not found in any of the individuals of the species examined by me. as earlier observers have stated, the eye-spot consists simply of a mass of pigment granules arranged in a single layer, and probably embedded in a protoplasmic framework, but the latter could not be seen, and its presence was only inferred from the fact that the pigment granules must be held together in some way, thd the eye-spot as a whole is capable of expansion, and that the pigment granules can be separated from each other.

hope this   and an i get brainlsiest